Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Research Methodology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Adoption of workplaces and reach of employees for a multi-faceted intervention targeting low back pain among nurses’ aides

Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen12*, Anne Konring Larsen1, Andreas Holtermann1, Karen Søgaard2 and Marie Birk Jørgensen1

  • * Corresponding author: Charlotte Diana N Rasmussen cnr@nrcwe.dk

Author Affiliations

1 National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallé 105, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark

2 Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014, 14:60  doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-60

Published: 1 May 2014

Abstract

Background

Workplace adoption and reach of health promotion are important, but generally poorly reported. The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate the adoption of workplaces (organizational level) and reach of employees (individual level) of a multi-faceted workplace health promotion and work environment intervention targeting low back pain among nurses’ aides in elderly care.

Methods

Percentage of adopters was calculated among eligible workplaces and differences between adopters and non-adopters were evaluated through workplace registrations and manager questionnaires from all eligible workplaces. From the adopted workplaces reach was calculated among eligible employees as the percentage who responded on a questionnaire. Responders were compared with non-responders using data from company registrations. Among responders, comparisons based on questionnaire data were performed between those consenting to participate in the intervention (consenters) and those not consenting to participate in the intervention (non-consenters). Comparisons were done using Student's t-test for the continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables and the Pearson’s chi2 for categorical variables. Moreover odds ratios for non-responding and non-consenting were investigated with binary logistic regression analyses.

Results

The project was adopted by 44% of the offered workplaces. The main differences between adopters and non-adopters were that workplaces adopting the intervention had a more stable organization as well as a management with positive beliefs of the intervention’s potential benefits. Of eligible employees, 71% responded on the questionnaire and 57% consented to participate. Non-responders and non-consenters did not differ from the responders and consenters on demographic factors and health. However, more non-responders and non-consenters were low skilled, worked less than 30 hours pr. week, and worked evening and nightshift compared to responders and consenters, respectively. Consenters had more musculoskeletal pain and reduced self-rated health, as well as higher physical exertion during work compared to non-consenters.

Conclusions

Our recruitment effort yielded a population of consenters that was representative of the target population of nurses’ aides with respect to demographic factors, and health. Moreover more consenters had problems like pain and high physical exertion during work, which fitted the scope of the intervention.

Trial registration

The study is registered as ISRCTN78113519.

Keywords:
RE-AIM; Participation; External validity; Health care workers; Musculoskeletal disorders